Player Unties Another's Shoe During FT

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The fact that it sometimes involves contact doesn't change the definition of unsportsmanlike conduct.

Actually, I think that it does. An "Unsporting Foul", as defined in 4-19, is a non-contact foul. So if there is contact, you cannot assess it as an unsporting or "unsportsmanlike" foul (a term which I don't think is actually used in the rulebook).

Having said that, I would not consider contact with an opponent's shoelaces to be "contact" for the purposes of personal vs technical fouls.

[Scrapper1]

I should also have added, that I have indeed given a technical foul for attempting to untie an opponent's shoes during a live ball.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Actually, I think that it does. An "Unsporting Foul", as defined in 4-19, is a non-contact foul. So if there is contact, you cannot assess it as an unsporting or "unsportsmanlike" foul (a term which I don't think is actually used in the rulebook).

I would have it as unsporting. I wouldn't be penalizing the "contact" with the shoe lace. I'd be penalizing the unsporting act of attempting to untie someone's shoes.

It would be no different than if I had one player bump into each other after a held ball and yell "F*** you". My technical will be unsporting, even though there was some contact on the play that I may choose not to penalize if it wasn't severe.

[jeschmit]

Two words: Double knot.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I would have it as unsporting. I wouldn't be penalizing the "contact" with the shoe lace. I'd be penalizing the unsporting act of attempting to untie someone's shoes.

It would be no different than if I had one player bump into each other after a held ball and yell "F*** you". My technical will be unsporting, even though there was some contact on the play that I may choose not to penalize if it wasn't severe.

Not a good example as that is dead ball contact which can be ignored by rule unless it is intentional or flagrant.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not a good example as that is dead ball contact which can be ignored by rule unless it is intentional or flagrant.

True. But that was my point (i'll admit not the best analogy). I would not be giving the technical because of contact with the shoelace (someone could touch someones shoelace in an attempt to let them know that it was untied). The technical in my opinion is the doing something to an opponent that is done in an unsporting manner.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

True. But that was my point (i'll admit not the best analogy). I would not be giving the technical because of contact with the shoelace (someone could touch someones shoelace in an attempt to let them know that it was untied). The technical in my opinion is the doing something to an opponent that is done in an unsporting manner.

So what kind of foul do you assess for a two-handed shove in the back during a breakaway layup? Do you think such an action is sporting?

How about if a player grabs an opponent by the hair during play, either to stop a try for goal or during rebounding action?

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So what kind of foul do you assess for a two-handed shove in the back during a breakaway layup? Do you think such an action is sporting?

How about if a player grabs an opponent by the hair during play, either to stop a try for goal or during rebounding action?

Intentional (or Flagrant if I thought it rose to that level) for both cases.

I don't see how that is anything close to untying someone's shoe away from the play.

[HokiePaul]

How about this ...Player A loses a headband going up the court. Player B picks up the headband and 1) in a friendly manner, puts the headband back on the head of Player A or 2) Puts the headband on the head of player A over his/her eyes in an unsporting manner.

I have nothing in #1
I have an unsporting technical in #2. It's not the intentional contact that I am calling, it is the unsporting act. If someone wants to argue that it is a live ball so it has to be intentional, I can see that, but I just disagree in this case (and the case of the shoe untying). In my opinion unsporting act of untying an opponents shoe causes the ball to become dead (not the officials whistle), much like it would if a player curses on the court.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Intentional (or Flagrant if I thought it rose to that level) for both cases.

Intentional or flagrant WHAT? You leave out the important part!

How about a player deliberately tripping an opponent during a live ball with the only contact being shoe-to-shoe?

What exactly is the standard that you are using to make your decisions?